Given the massacre in Aurora on Friday, much of the discussions on the Sunday shows dealt with what, if anything, can be done to prevent similar violence in the future. One of the more noteworthy discussions was held on "Fox News Sunday," where Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made the case for gun control, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) argued against it.
Much of the conversation went about as one might expect. Johnson, a right-wing senator in his second year, argued that policymakers can't enact any new restrictions on firearms, and that even high-capacity magazines, which had been banned as part of the federal assault-weapon ban that expired in 2004, must be legally permissible.
If policymakers even try to "keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm," the result is undue restrictions on "our freedoms."
So what would Johnson prefer to see as an alternative?
JOHNSON: Well, it's certainly one of the rationales behind conceal and carry, where criminals actually have to be a little concerned before they commit a criminal act that maybe somebody could stop them. And I think that is the truth. That somebody, a responsible individual had been carrying a weapon, maybe -- maybe -- they could have prevented the death and injuries. I mean, that's just the truth.
FEINSTEIN: And maybe you could have had a firefight and killed many more people.
This apparently has become the principal talking point for many opponents of gun-control laws: if there were others in the theater with loaded firearms, maybe they could have shot at the deranged gunman wearing Kevlar and a helmet.
Indeed, this seems to come up quite a bit after every similar incident -- we heard very similar rhetoric after the massacres in Tucson and Blacksburg. Just a few days after the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords' life, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said, "I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person."
Let's unpack this a bit, because it seems like an important part of the larger discussion.
First, I think there's a risk that this argument starts to blame the victims, as if it was the job of those in that Aurora theater to bring loaded guns with them to the movies.
Second, the circumstances generally aren't as obvious as some would like to believe. I'm reminded of a piece from William Saletan published soon after the Tucson shootings, about Joe Zamudio, which I wrote about at the time.
Zamudio, you may recall, was in a nearby store when he heard gunshots. He took his own gun, clicked off the safety, and advanced towards the gunman. When he got to the scene, Zamudio saw a man holding a gun and shouted at him to drop his weapon. Indeed, Zamudio very nearly shot the man holding the gun.
The man Zamudio saw, however, wasn't Jared Lee Loughner; it was the man who'd wrestled the gun away from Jared Lee Loughner.
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."
That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person -- a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.
We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting.
The point, of course, isn't to take anything away from Zamudio. On the contrary, he showed great courage, and it's likely he played a role in saving lives.
But after the Aurora violence, Ron Johnson sees his approach as "just the truth," and it's not that simple. The common assumption -- more armed citizens means more public safety -- is more complicated than some conservatives would like us to believe.
Update: After the Tucson shootings, my colleague Laura Conaway did some great reporting on modern examples (or lack thereof) of armed civilian bystanders intervening to stop mass shootings.
Leave a Comment:
There is absolutely no reason why ordinary citizens need access to AK-47's and other military-style automatic weapons. These should be banned immediately and permanently. You don't need an Uzi for self-defense or for hunting -- just hunting people.. These mass murders are indeed the act of deranged and unstable people; "culture" has nothing to do with it. But the way to stop these events is make sure no one can get their hands on weapons more deadly and powerful than those in use by police or the United States military. Stealth bombers are illegal to arm and use by private citizens. Why not "assault rifles" with 100-round armor-piercing bullets? http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Stealth bombers are not illegal, they're just REALLY expensive.
Be careful, next you'll now it the NRA will push for legalized stealth bombers.
The reason people want AK's has nothing to do with common criminals. The unspoken reason people want AKs is to protect themselves from their government. As irrational as it sounds, a lot of them really think the Democrats are trying to deny them freedom and impose an all powerful state. They have lost faith in democracy and why not. If they look at Washington they see a nest of theives robbing them of their future. They are told to distrust government every day by cable news.
It isn't just the right that has lost faith in their Government. Read the posts here and ask yourselves how many people really think Republicans, who are working hard to suppress votes and move the nation's wealth to a handful of gated communities, have our best interests at heart.
But the Army would never side with the elites? Maybe the old citizen Army would have stuck with the people but what about the all volunteer Army. Who is the Army going to protect in the event of a civil disturbance? The peope? Not hardly. Why do we have an all volunteer army in the first place?
The intense opposition to gun control is based on the fear of our government, and not much more. Are their fears rational? No. Are they real? Yes.
You make a good point. But any rational person would not even think of owning a gun for defense against the government. Do I thane very little faith in my government? Yes, especially congress. But, has it ever made me want to buy a gun? Absolutely not, never. My weapon of choice is my speech, and my vote. Any sane person with half a mind would agree with me on this.
Some of the main reasons that people want to own AK and AR style rifles is that they are easy to shoot and maintain, and that ammunition and accessories (magazines, etc.) are readily available.
Many of us trained with and carried the assault rifle versions of the AR platform while we were in the military (where we used the M-16 or M-4), so the (non-assault rifle version) semi-automatic AR-15 is familiar to us and safe to use.
As a former military firearms instructor, I like the AR. It is light, safe, fun to shoot, doesn't have much recoil, is accurate, and is very customizable. Google "Barbie for Men" to see some images of the customization options for the AR platform.
Even those who never served in the military are familiar with these rifles because we have seen them in movies and on TV countless times. They are familiar to us.
It should be obvious by now that incidents such as the one in Aurora are totally acceptable to the Gun Cult as long as they are able to amass huge amounts of firearms.
If anyone here still has a beat in their hearts that say politicians make decisions and laws based on the good of the people DON'T WATCH POLITICAL ANIMALS on cable.
Omg - I just watched the dvr recorded first episode last night and the small amount of trust I had has now left me for those that run the US government and represent all of us. God save us all.
I think the same could be said for The Newsroom on HBO.
I agree with Ron Byers up to a point, but Jiggidy also makes sense. Having weapons of war to ostensibly protect yourself against the government is a contrivance to mask seething anger and the feelings of insignificance that underly it. Uneducated and unskilled gangbangers feel important because they're irrationally dangerous. If your white, rural, and unable to cope with the modern world, you feel angry and impotent. You contrive a delusion of the dangerous encroaching government. that focuses your anger outward, and your preparations for mass violence is a virtue; you're defending freedom. Like the inner city kid with no hope, you also feel powerful because your dangerous and can inflict great harm and injury.
There is no functional difference between an "assault rifle" and a semi-automatic hunting rifle. It's all about looks, symbolism. Fully automatic weapons are federally regulated.
Until the assault weapons ban high capacity magazines were a curiosity. Having a foot-long stick full of brass and lead poking out of the grip of a pistol does nothing for marksmanship and makes it damned difficult to holster. Before the ban the 50 round banana clip for the Ruger .22 was notorious. And not because of fears. When they made them out of steel, the additional weight and leverage caused them to damage the gun. So, they made them out of plastic. Which flexed. If you held the gun anything other than dead level it would cause jams, totally defeating its purpose as a plinking aid. Nobody bought them except for 16 year-old kids who didn't know any better. Enter the assault weapons ban on high capacity magazines. Overnight, they became a fetish item. Prices tripled and dealers still sold out. Totally defeated the purpose of the ban in the first place.
these folks are crazy.
nobody outside of the military needs an automatic weapon. period.
Automatic weapons are already illegal, period.
Yes, Dave-3571789, they are, but an AR-15 is still a brutal device, and of no value for hunting. It's one purpose is to maim or kill. (apparently the hydrostatic shock of a .223 is worse than the direct damage from a larger calibre bullet. YMMV.)
Also, the AR-15 can be converted to a form as near to automatic as counts.
Wrong Dave--fully automatic weapons are legal--just frightfully expensive and a hassle to license>
1. The machine gun has to be older than 1986--the MG control act of 1986 forbids ownership of new machine guns by non-LE /Military
2. You must submit application with mugshot & fingerprints and a $200 transfer fee
3. You must notify the sherrifs dept of your intent to possess--they can send feedback to the BATF of a thumbs up or down.
4. You must have a safe bolted to a concrete floor with cellular dial alarm system
5. The BATF can ask to see the weapon ANY TIME of the day or night if they come knocking at the door.
6. The $200 tax is paid every time the weapon transfers--add another $200 for a silencer if so equipped.
7. You must carry a copy of the tax stamp showing legal ownership if you are transporting it to a range area or risk confiscation.
8. it takes about 6 months to get BATF approval--if you are approved
A entry level MAC-10 is about $3500--an old school tommy gun is 15-25K--full auto is a rich mans hobby--ammo consumption aside
While it is not considered a good choice for hunting deer, the .223/5.56x45 cartridge is an excellent choice for hunting small game, like varmints (rabbit, prairie dog, coyote, etc.), especially in open spaces (like the Western states) where a traditional .22 doesn't have the range.
The AR-15 is the most popular and widely used rifle in this caliber.
I don't know if this will be read as I don't know the refresh rate of comments, but I'll say this, somewhat with tongue in cheek: I read that the AR-15, with a 100-round magazine, jammed while the shooter was unleashing his barrage against anyone he could shoot, and had to switch weapons. /snark on-he should sue the seller and manufacturer of the weapon for selling him a defective product. I heard from many soldiers from the VietNam era that they preferred AK47s to the M16/AR15 because of their reliability and sturdiness in harsh and dirty conditions. The U.S.-issued M16s often jammed and didn't work well in the wet and humid conditions of the jungles. Many of my Vietnamese counterparts carried the AKs in deference to the M16s for this very reason. Thank God Holmes chose the less-reliable AR15 for his weapon of preference. His choice must have saved many lives./snark off
What good would it have done someone in the audience to have a sidearm against a well-armored shooter. Besides endangering dozens of people with wild shooting, the civilian shooter would have attracted more gunfire in his direction, thus endangering those people. And, if the police arrived while the shooting was underway, how would they distinguish the shooter from the audience member supposedly defending the people?
@blatanville You ought to learn something about guns before you comment. Second, hunting is killing. Actual hunters know and understand this and have respect for their prey.
what is up with the double-posting on one click thing?
@Miracle, I don't think game hunters have any respect for "their prey", they're killing for fun, that's not respectful, it's disgusting. It's one thing to hunt for food, it's another thing to snuff out a life just because it's "fun". But perhaps you don't consider people like that to be real hunters.
Johnson's defense of the 2nd is absurd.
By his reasoning, I should be allowed to "Keep and Bear" surface to air missiles, RPGs, and a bucket of hand grenades when I visit the beach.
apparently, with the lapsing, in 2004, of the gun control bill, it is once-again legal to possess hand grenades, and grenade launchers. You need to buy a tax-stamp for each one (~$200), and find someone to sell them to you (but then, the Internets are wide...) , but, if you're the kind of guy who buys 6000 rounds of ammo, a few grenades out of the budget aren't that hard to justify, are they?
Let's see. A heavily armed man in a darkened theater with 3, 4, 5 armed people in the crowd. After all, what could go wrong?
Yes, when he had multiple weapons and was wearing body armor. I am sure even the most diciplined well trained police officer would have thought twice about firing a weapon in the dark if he was not sure who the gunman was. Seems to me a lot of people were screaming and getting up trying to escape. I guess you should just fire at the light of the gun firing and hope you hit the right person. Basicly IMO Johnson is saying we need to let the public be the law enforcement because we cannot deny freedom to own assault weapons to deranged people.
And don't forget the added smoke/gas from the cannisters that were set off at the beginning of the shooting. Those were set off to impede vision of anyone in the crowd that might have had a weapon and could fire back. Add the body armor, complete with leggings, neck and groin protection, and you have an almost impossible situation for taking out this shooter by someone in the crowd shooting back.
The entire argument offered by the Johsons of the world is absurd. The real capper of this idiocy is from former Senator Russell Pearce, infamous for his SB1070 bill in Arizona:
http://tinyurl.com/bolzyac
Just imagine, all those idiots that cannot drive, cannot wait in line, cannot decide what to order at the drive thru... imagine all of them with guns, in a critical moment. Yeah... seems like a wonderful idea.
If only George Zimmerman had been there.
The shooter was white. He'd have done nothing.
This makes no sense in this particular case because the shooter was in full body armor. Does anyone really think that someone pulling a gun on this guy would accomplish anything other than giving him a target?
Uhh, yes. A vest saves your life doesn't prevent your from being injured. It's not @!$%#ing magic. You get hit by something as small as a 9mm it's going to knock you on your ass and knock the wind out of you. Crack a rib, make a nice contusion. I carry a 40 cal. 12 rounds of that would certainly knock him down.
Ah yes the macho male with a gun.
It's not macho. It's common sense and personal defense. You must be a believer in prayer. I wouldn't have made a distance shot, that's for sure. I would have taken cover and waited for an opening if one ever arrived. I have fired weapons with a gas mask on and off and after being tear gassed. Not to mention I've spent just a little time in combat zones being shot at. So, my experience trumps your patronizing snark. I don't carry a weapon to defend anyone else, actually the way the laws are that could open me to liability.
please let me know when you are out in public...I want to protect myself, by staying as far away from you as possible...
Body armor? pffft . Use 7.62x25mm Tokarov ammo--it's banned in Calif & NJ because it'll fly through 8 bullet proof vests stacked . More manufacturers are making guns in this caliber as it's plentiful and relatively inexpensive on the surplus market
Yes Thea'sGrace, please stay far away from me. I'm sure the two women I've saved from bad, public domestic violence situations feel the same way. Three time's I've pulled my gun and have ended bad situations without firing a shot. Considering I am armed whenever I go out, for the most part, and nobody ever knows, you would be hard-pressed to tell whether I was armed or not. You can't tell who the people are carrying concealed. That's the point of concealing them. Thea'sGrace, I would hate to tell you but when the @!$%# goes down I'm the person you want to be next to, or you can sit and talk to an imaginary sky wizard and see how that works out for you.
Thank you, DAY-3905329, for reading my mind.
The second amendment may make arms legal, but it doesn't say that ALL arms are legal. When the amendment was crafter, huge muskets were the weapon of the day, not automatic weapons... and chemical weapons and nuclear stockpiles are arms... so... by Johnson et. al.'s logic, it's every American's right (and duty) to carry those around?
I guess he would say to do away with the obscenity restrictions on the first amendment as well...
Well, first of all you are being hyperbolic. There are, of course, restrictions on all these so-called "freedoms." Most famously, you have free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Also you can own guns but you have to, in some states register them, in some states you can't carry them concealed...etc. I am not against reasonable limitations imposed on the selling, buying and registration. But an outright ban on all firearms is just unreasonable. You are making it sound like every gun owner is a delusional, right-wing maniac with something to prove. I have nothing to prove I like guns, I like shooting the sport of shooting them and I like the idea of having to defend myself and my family from bad people.
I'm sorry that freedom is so scary. That is why America has more problems that the rest of the world because we have more freedom of maneuver without government intervention. The only way you will feel safe is by limiting freedom then at least admit who you are and what you want to do. It seems the end state for most of the people on here is to repeal the 2nd Amendment because it will make you feel better, well go for it.
Essentially, this is the left (of which I consider myself a part) trying to create policy based off of a statistical absurdity. There is no difference between what the left is doing now to gun owners and gun policy and what the right did on 9-12-2001 to Muslims and terrorism.
Actually, I think there is a difference, mdbyrne.
What's wrong with requiring a waiting period for a thorough background check? What's wrong with requiring gun owners to take a gun safety class and/or hunter safety class, to obtain a license to own their gun (and requiring them to take a written and action test every four years to prove that they haven't forgotten what they learned)? We do licensing and renewal with drivers.
There's a difference between some idiot who's never learned to drive, never learned the rules of the road and road safety, getting behind the wheel and driving... as opposed to someone who's been required to learn those things and to demonstrate competence before being licensed to drive a vehicle. Granted, I think we need to improve driver safety courses and improve testing to include info on "not doing stupid things while driving, like reading, texting, watching a video, putting on makeup, etc."
The point is, a vehicle isn't just transport---it's a weapon, and often a lethal one. A gun isn't just protection---it's a weapon, and often a lethal one. I think in both cases, a person ought to have training, and prove safety knowledge and competence in use, before being allowed to drive (in the case of the cars) and to carry/own (in the case of guns).
Too many states don't provide adequate laws on gun education and on waiting periods for background checks. I think we need a national standard for it, so that the same quality standards get applied across the board. Likewise, having a national background check service could help. Colorado's got some of the worst laws (slackist) in the nation, in regard to gun ownership and gun use.
Look, the point isn't to deny people the right to own, or to carry, guns; the point is to be responsible in ensuring that those who do, 1. aren't former criminals, and 2. know what the heck they're doing with one, and how to own/use it safely.
Chris-Allen, as I said above there is absolutely nothing wrong with licensing or even registration, which I am against but it's better than an outright ban. States are already doing what you stated above.
Do you own any firearms or have a concealed handgun license at all? I'm not saying that to be an a-hole but to demonstrate that the situation is not as scary as you have been propagandized to think it is. Just as the situation isn't as scary as the NRA is saying it is, as far as Pres. Obama coming into your house and personally taking your guns.
I have 3 CHLs from 3 different states I can carry concealed in 40 with reciprocity agreements as they currently stand. My military service counted as training for IN and VA. In Texas I had to do 14 hours of instruction which included an hour of range time and 2 hours of conflict de-escalation training. My packet included fingerprints and consent for an FBI background check on all of them. Not to mention anytime I buy a handgun I have to pass a background check. Anytime I sell a firearm in a personal transaction in Texas I have to submit a firearms bill of sale to the state. Legislating away freedom on an anomaly, I understand an emotional and horrific anomaly, is no way to run a country, at least not a free one.
Most states are being responsible. Believe it or not Texas is one of the most responsible CHL states I've been in. They don't even allow open-carry. If your state isn't being responsible then change your state laws. This is a state responsibility, like it seems CO isn't acting very responsibly, although there was nothing in this guys background, so far, that would have negated him from passing a background check and getting a gun. So, the only other option is then just banning all guns to make sure nobody can get them. All I'm asking is that people be honest about what they want. Some on here seem to want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I say, go for it. If that's what the House, Senate and then the legislatures of 2/3 of the US ratify then I'm OK with it. Good luck. Just get ready for another civil war, because I think it would go that far. But remember the states that want to repeal the 2nd Amendment will be the ones without the guns... :}
Yeah, I mean that's just ludicrous. A responsible citizen with a firearm has never saved anyone. Oh wait, there was just this story last week...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGFZDhCjvj0
and the story of an off-duty cop shooting his own son.
Armed citizens in robberies have a chance, yes. Robbers don't walk in shooting everyone. Most robbers want to get home with cash and no complications. This is THE ONLY thing that gives armed citizens the chance to act.
Active Shooter situations are radically different
Yeah, I happen to work at Fort Hood been here since Oct. 2009. I have a little experience dealing with active shooter scenario.
Well, good for you, mdbyrne! How many people with what you claim your training was do you think were walking around in that theater, even if they *had been armed?
What's more than that, the scenario in which you claim you would have intervened in the shooting (*if you had been there) is severely restricted, which is actually a good thing. So, the chances are your presence would have made no difference whatsoever. The increased chance for a bigger tragedy in the absence of someone with the experience you claim to possess, relying on civilians to assess the situation and act according to the experience (or lack thereof) that they possess is quite significant, and not worth it IMO. The more proper course of action is to make possession of the high-powered rifles, and/or the large-capacity drums illegal. The shooter, after all, did in fact purchase all these items legally. If he had had to do so illegally, it might well have increased his chances of being caught before he had a chance to go on his rampage.
You intervened and shot the fort hood guy? Nice work.
Khublaiprawn, that is not what I said or implied. Your stupidity and arrogance are astounding if you inferred that from my comment.
And there's something else about Fort Hood that goes to the larger point here.
In an odd bit or irony you are not allowed to carry personal weapons on Fort Hood. It's against federal law. Carrying personally owned weapons, open or concealed is illegal. So, how well did that gun control law, or gun ban, work on Nov. 5, 2009 in stopping a criminal from coming in and committing a criminal act? Not very well at all if you ask me.
A) Sir, you walked right into my point. You appealed to expertise base on proximity. Sorry dude, that doesn't fly. Seen it many times, fails if people keep their eyes open for it.
B) immediately resorting to insults demonstrates many many things about a speaker, correctness ain't one of them.
Just because I didn't stop him doesn't mean I wasn't in a position to know what happened and was happening and have up to the minute knowledge as it was happening, and not through the news. I would rather not disclose what my position was or what I do. Not that it's secret squirrel or sensitive, I would just rather not say. Not to mention, breaching and clearing a building of a hostile threat, which I have done, just not on Nov. 5, 2009 at Fort Hood, is very similar. You jumped to a hyperbolic and erroneous conclusion that I was implying that I shot the shooter, whomever it may be, which is not what I was implying at all.
A) My comment was a trap, sir.
Many people say, you don't know because you weren't at __— and I was. that is bad argument and evidence of nothing.
B) In breaching a building you do have threats that are unknown in number, position, and weaponry, but you also have the advantage as the one causing the startle effect. You aren't' sitting in a theatre in the dark with screaming people pressed against you, and tear gas in your eyes/nose/throat.
C) Assuming and pronouncing stupidity because someone disagrees and calls you on an appeal to proximity (which was all you announced at first: "I was there"; that is a good way to make 100% enemies where you might otherwise find an 70% ally.
D) watch the north Hollywood shootout videos. lots of officers, lots of swat, many many many rounds shot= 11 cops wounded, 7 civilians and eventually 2 bad guys.
The FBI does agree (and so do I) that those with exceptional (exceptional) training, should coordinate with local law enforcement ahead of time on active shooter situations. If you are as highly trained as you say (no reason to doubt) then you are in this group. By all means coordinate.
However, having met many many maaaaany people who are gun carry/concealed carry advocates, you are their poster child; they are far less skilled.
Do you put yourself in a different category from someone who goes to the range occasionally and was a deputy sheriff for one or two years, or did ROTC. I'm guessing and hoping you would.
Test, license, register and coordinate civilian "SWAT responders" I agree with. but they are not the main body of assault weapons concealed carry advocates.
It will be believed, when the NCCA and College football really does mean what they say, instead of how much money can be made without any regard to others. This mentality of playing favorites to people who make huge amounts of money, regardless of who is affected or hurt has gone on for years. To think, these people are actually being sincere is really only half hearted and appears to be as it usually is. Show a little concern than go back to business as usual with no conviction to really implement any true reforms. The amount of money taken in is corruptive and hasn’t even gone to where it was to go for a more economical education of the students. These Colleges and Universities should be ashamed of the behavior and performance they have done and have only done corrupt and greedy behavior. How many other Colleges and Universities have covered up atrocities and crimes? Way too many. How many students have benefited from this supposed gain of money for the educational system? Very little if any. All this has done is line the pockets of a select few again and at the cost of everybody else.
When are gun advocates going to realize that most citizens just don't want to carry guns around? It doesn't matter how loose you make gun laws if people have decided it isn't worth it to carry. We've already decided as a country that we'd rather pay for a police force than carry weapons ourselves.
Early in my marriage my husband was often gone on the weekends. We lived in a very safe community and we had no guns. On Friday night I would take a large butcher knife to the bedroom. Then we got new carpet and I decided I would not want to have my blood or anyone elses on my new carpet. Instead we invested in good dead bolt locks and a phone in the bedroom and I put the knife back in the kitchen where it belonged. I know I would never have been able to use that knife and it would not have been much use against a person with a gun. If we arm the public with concealed weapons we are just asking for more death not less crime.
RoJo is absolutely disgusting. I'm so ashamed to admit that he's one of my senators. It seems that he (and others like him) are hell-bent on making Wisconsin a part of the new Wild West. This attitude is a huge part of the problem. So many people up here these days think that guns are a part of the solution - they're definitely a part of the problem. There is no need for any civilian in this country to own an assault weapon - PERIOD. This isn't about 2nd amendment rights - this is about the rights of all our citizenry to live without fear of other citizens either having an error in judgment or just simply going off the deep end. Frankly, I think the preamble to the constitution should supercede the amendments - people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The second amendment, in today's world with modern weaponry, is definitely in conflict with other citizens right to life.
I'm still astounded that there were enough mindless morons in Wisconsin to choose this guy over Russ Feingold. I always had a higher opinion of the folks in Wisconsin. After the elections of Johnson and Walker, I guess I need to revise that opinion.
Any chance that intelligent thought and common sense will return this fall so that Tammy Baldwin can win?
Want to know the difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault weapon"? Looks and possibly provenance. That's it.
triple post this time. I'm impressed newsvine.
grr
FBI says armed citizens in an active shooter rampage almost certainly = friendly fire and collateral damage. DieHard was a movie. There is no John Rambo. I know Special Forces guys who would have shielded a victim with his body, not willingly created 5 more bodies. People who have been shot at and have had gas in their eyes don't believe in Hollywood crap.
How incompetent do you have to be?
How would a magic hero with a concealed weapon be able to stop a guy in kevlar?
You mock the idea of a "magic hero", yet seem to have no trouble portraying a "magic criminal" with "magic body armor", and a solution through the "magic of gun control".
The reality is that no matter what the end result of an armed citizen firing back at Holmes would have been, the moment Holmes realized he was facing armed opposition, the whole dynamic of the situation would have changed.
Instead of being the invincible, godlike, dealer of death, his power fantasy would have been shattered as he realized that he was not the only armed person in the situation.
That, in and of itself, might have caused him to panic and retreat.
Body armor is not magical, and doesn't protect you from all the effects of a bullet hitting you. It will keep most pistol rounds from penetrating, but they will still deliver a kinetic energy blow to the body beneath the armor, bruising and breaking bones.
Holmes would have been forced to re-assess his situation. We know that he chose a venue where people were more likely to be unarmed targets (a "gun free zone"), and tried to protect himself. We also know that after he exited the theater, he meekly surrendered to the police (even though he had all his body armor and was better armed than any patrolman would be). Holmes obviously wanted to live through his spree, so he could enjoy his notoriety.
Once bullets started coming at HIM (whether or not they hit him), Holmes would have had to master the "fight or flight" reflex, and would most likely have retreated from the theater, thus limiting the number of victims. The next most likely result would be for him to focus on the citizen (or citizens) returning fire, taking ten, twenty, or thirty seconds to engage and attempt to neutralize them, and this allowing more of the others to escape unharmed.
So what COULD HAVE happened is that his spree would have been cut short by him being killed or injured, frightened away, or distracted - all of which would have resulted in fewer casualties. Of course, armed citizens could have panicked and started firing wildly into the crowd (just as panicked citizens could have trampled others in their attempts to escape the theater). The most likely scenarios all involve fewer deaths (although the anti-gun crowd would then argue that Holmes would have stopped firing anyway , so nobody was actually saved).
Of course, we don't know what WOULD HAVE happened if there had been armed citizens there, because gun control was in effect in that theater - a "Gun Free Zone".
What we do know is what DID happen in that gun controlled area - a criminal entered and was able to be in complete control of the situation until he had mechanical failures of his equipment. Once he was confronted by an armed opponent, he meekly surrendered without a fight.
Joseph, I agree. Apparently simple physics eludes some people. (p=mv) Momentum is equal to mass x velocity, so a 9mm at 9.5g moving at 300 m/sec has energy that will be stopped by his body and has to dissipated throughout the vest and absorbed by his guts, bones and muscles. In other words it hurts. A vest will save your life with small arms but it won't necessarily keep you from getting injured. Cracked ribs and painful bone contusions, getting the wind knocked out of you if you get a square shot on the chest. People who know absolutely nothing about firearms but the propaganda that's been fed to them should not be setting gun policy and that includes the NRA worshippers as well.
How exactly do you plan on implementing and enforcing a ban? ((When ever I comment on these things I preface it by saying I consider myself a liberal. I am a registered democrat. I am educated. I say do this because so many in my own party make all opponents of gun laws into backwards un-educated, must be in the lobbyists pockets... I feel I must dispel this myth.))
I know legal gun owners. Many own assault type rifles. They all have had classes in proper gun safety. None of them have ever pointed a gun at another human. They follow the law. What is the government going to offer? Are they going to buy the guns? Are they going into these peoples' homes and take them with force?? Imagine THAT! Going and taking guns from millions of Americans with force!!! Doesn't that appeal to your freedom gene?
Why do they "need" these guns? I don't care. That gun in my friends' hands is doing no harm to anyone. Leave them alone!
I have friends with assault weapons too. I just think the cost of having assault weapons in circulation far outweighs any benefits in my friends having assault weapons. It's not about punishing people with guns.
You should care why your friend's need guns, because even if it isn't doing any harm in their hands, it is doing harm in other people's hands. And if you're going to argue that people should have the right to have these things, then you should have reasons to support that argument. "They're good people" isn't a supporting argument. Everyone who has done something bad was a good person until they weren't.
It's quite possible to grandfather in the existing owners, at least at the start of the ban. If nothing else, stopping the SALE of assault weapons could be a start.
Your friends have all had classes in proper gun safety. Was that part of the process they NEEDED to do in order to get access to guns? Or is it just something that the people you know happened to have. I wouldn't feel safe driving if liscensing was optional, even if all my friends chose to get liscences. That doesn't mean everyone else with a car has.
Also, immediately going to "THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THE GUNS BY FORCE" is a great way to make the argument. There are many other ways to enforce a ban. Making the sale and interstate transport of certain types of guns makes it so that, even if there are some guns in the hands of owners out there, those guns will, at the very least, not end up changing hands [legally].
The guns in your friends' hands may not be doing harm to anyone, but what if it isn't in your friends' hands? They may be safety concious, and have ensured that the gun can't be found by their children. Whatever use they have for the gun, there is always a risk involved. In hunting, there are accidents. In the case of self defense, harming someone is likely, and it's possible due to confusion, or accident, etc, that the harmed party isn't the person that was invading the home, or threatening the gun owner, etc.
Considering the ammount of law enforcement dedicated to fighting the 'war on crimes', the US seems to be perfectly fine with lumping potential danger with tons of harmless people, and is fine with making the whole 'if you outlaw it, only criminals will have it' problem either. Wondering how that appeals to a lot of people's freedom gene, that owning an AK is legal, but a bit of pot will get you thrown in jail.
No matter how much I love my gun collector friends, I think there is something askew in the minds of those who think they need assault weapons. It's kind of a testosterone test like monster trucks, but not as innocent.
Seeing fellow liberals talk about "assault weapons" is like seeing freepers and Beckans mouth off about "Soshulizm". No meaning, no context, no understanding of what the phrase stands for. Aggravating and self-defeating
What??! I know about assault weapons as well as any conservative. I may even buy one if it looks like the ban will be put into place.
You don't make sense.
Wonk wonk wonk you all sound like charlie Brown's school teacher as long as the military can have them I will have one. And one well placed bullet in that theater could have saved peoples lives,one life would have made a gun worth having that night fools...
An experience and highly trained police office probably would NOT have opened fire in a dark and chaotic environment, especially when the target was wearing armor. Why do you think some amateur could have taken him out? There probably WERE people with concealed guns in that theater, thank GOD they had enough judgment not to use them.
I find it funny that gun lovers think that anyone who had a gun would calmly be able to aim a gun and hit a shooter when bullets are flying around. Don't forget, there were people who were carrying firearms when Rep. Giffords was shot and no one reacted in time before the shooter got off 31 rounds. Then when people started to react, one person with a gun almost shot another one who pulled out his gun.
and he had the advantage of that 40 bullet clip .
Everyone should get one , then we can have some serious firefights.
Court Rodney just proved my earlier point. There's a screw loose.
Why do so many anti-gun people always talk about "well trained police officers" as a standard for quality shooting? While some police officers are proficient with firearms, many are not - they shoot the minimum number of rounds required by their agency, and rely on being the only armed person in most situations to carry them through.
CCW permit holders have a much better record in regards to shooting criminals - they tend to be more accurate, and not to hit as many bystanders as police do. This is because CCW holders choose to do this, sometimes have to go through training that EXCEEDS that required of police officers, and generally put in more practice than the average police officer does.
For an example of the standard of firearms training provided to police, check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IZlcbJwfP4
or just google "Glock 40 negligent discharge"
Its people like you who give gun owners a bad name joseph , your presenting bull @!$%# as fact , just like the nra you speak against , your self absorbed and distort the issue from that perspective , not a good base for an argument after what just happened
It is the police officers job to stop the shooter and some are better than others. If the people in the theater had started shooting it probably would have made the shooter even more fanatical! Can you imagine standing up against him while he is shooting 40 rounds as fast as possible? I don't think so!!!! Assault weapons should be banned. That man bought that gun and all that ammo with one thing in mind, And he chose a movie theater and he killed men, women and a child that he did not know, had never done anything to him!!! A huge RED flag should jump up when someone buys that many guns and a huge amount of ammo, I don't care who you are. And don't tell me you would be loosing your right to bear arms, those people would still be alive if we had more checks and balances when it comes to guns. You have to sign to get sudafed, and if you buy to much you get investicated!!! The checks when you buy a gun are a joke. and if you go to a gun show, none.
As I understand the 2nd amendment, it is for the purpose of maintaining a well disciplined militia. It is also to protect against a despotic government. Since when do a bunch of well-armed civilians stand a chance against a multi-billion dollar, trained/brainwashed and armed military force commanded by corporate and government institutions? Give me a break! mdbyrne, tell me how you will counter a militarized police force bent on removing you as a threat. Perhaps by becoming on of them?
I have a right to bear arms and I want mine to be nukes.
I wouldn't mind having a couple of those World War II 50 cal. machine guns like the ones in Saving Private Ryan. Those things are BA! Just sayin . . .
(And for those of you who can't appreciate sarcasm . . . I don't REALLY want those things out on the streets!)
Too expensive to own and feed, plus I'd have to go to another state to find a range where I could safely shoot them.
I'd rather spend my money on a couple of dozen ARs and tens of thousands of rounds for them. That way, when the SHTF (We don't get many hurricanes or tornadoes, but I live in Earthquake and Riot country), and all my fellow teachers turn to me for help, I can train them and arm them from my own collection.
What an embarrassment to be from Wisconsin with this moron as my U.S. Senator. Yeah, let's just all open fire whenever we feel threatened -- certainly the way any civilized society should resolve problems.
Ron Johnson says: ," the result is undue restrictions on "our freedoms." Let's talk about freedom of speech. This is one of our most cherished freedoms. And yet, we put reasonable restrictions on it. Can't yell fire in a theater. Can't libel someone. Can't make terroristic threats. Why should guns exist in this restriction-free environment when even speech is occasionally caged??
Can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Shouldn't be able to fire in a crowded theater, either. Six or seven concealed guns all firing off in that crowded, smoke-filled theater, and Ron Johnson thinks that would save lives? Has he never heard of collateral damage? And . . . if someone with a concealed gun would have actually gotten lucky and eventually took out Holmes, then Holmes never would have been apprehended, and never would have had the opportunity to tell the police about his booby-trapped apartment. The apartment building never would have been evacuated. The police would have gone in looking for evidence, and would have set off God knows what type of bombs, incendiary and chemical, which would have killed them and the other tenants of the apartment building that were still there.
Some people just have no common sense. Wonder how much he's getting in donations from the NRA for that appearance on Fox News?
we must constantly remind the citizenry that your rights end at your finger tip...and do not include extensions such as guns...you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't intrude on my right...I'd say the shooter intruded on a lot of people's rights...the right to the pursuit of happiness...even in a movie theater...what about their rights, gunners? don't we have any rights? to live without fear of attending any event without someone intruding? or are the Packers the only ones with the rights?
Yes and what about the freedom to go to a midnight showing of a movie and come out alive, isn't that freedom worth something? In Johnson's mind I guess not.
If your rights end at your finger tip, then they certainly don't include such extensions as keyboards and pens. By your logic, the First amendment means nothing, and you have no right to be in this discussion. I guess your rights end at your lips, too - so you aren't allowed to say anything either.
Those who responsibly arm themselves are the ones protecting everyone's rights. The first weapon against tyranny is the 1st amendment, and the backup to protect that from being taken away by tyrants is the 2nd Amendment. Is that clear enough?
@ Methree - the "freedom to go to a midnight movie and come out alive" was taken away by Holmes, aided by the theater's "gun free zone" policy, and hypocritical anti-gun legislators like Feinstein.
Detroit Free Press:
http://www.freep.com/article/20120722/COL10/207220572/Rochelle-Riley-We-have-no-right-to-despair-when-our-culture-OKs-assault-weapons
"It happened again.
Quit crying. Stop asking for prayer.
We don't really care.
I don't have to recount the times in our American past that some nut job with a gun has shot dozens of people.
But what I can't figure out is why we watch it, do nothing about it and then cry when it happens again?
Why are lives less important than a bastardized interpretation of the Second Amendment?
We've been having the wrong debate."
Right to the point. We cry as a nation when it is a mass murder but turn our backs on the young people and childen that are killed every day. After a few weeks this too will be forgotten except by the victim's families and still there will be no reform, no laws to ban assault weapons because too many in our government seem to be afraid of the NRA.
Me Three:
Between 2006 and 2010 more than 47,000 people were killed in the United States by firearms, according to ATF reports
That's about 30 a day
Just another day - no big deal
the second amendment says that the purpose of the right to bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia. So...maybe all the adults in the room should be talking about what "well regulated" really means, cuz, what it doesn't mean is "anything and everything, anytime".
Ron Johnson is a horse's ass.
There was a line from the movie "Support Your Local Sheriff" that says it all. In an attempt to curb gun violence James Garner made a new ordinance, you must "eat" what ever you shoot. Guess that would not work now.
Then there's the situation at Virginia Tech, where it was said an armed student would have been able to stop the shooter. Imagine, if you will, that same place with 4-5 armed guys, having received a little gun-safety training and now thinking they have the judgment of a police officer. These of course, are really 18-22-year-old guys, and you know how mature that age group is. They pull out their guns and start shooting. Of course they are not trained marksmen and they wind up shooting even more people than the shooter. The cops arrive and it's not immediately clear who the bad guy is with all those guns blazing.
Why do so many anti-gun people always talk about "well trained police officers" as a standard for quality shooting? While some police officers are proficient with firearms, many are not - they shoot the minimum number of rounds required by their agency, and rely on being the only armed person in most situations to carry them through.
CCW permit holders have a much better record in regards to shooting criminals - they tend to be more accurate, and not to hit as many bystanders as police do. This is because CCW holders choose to do this, sometimes have to go through training that EXCEEDS that required of police officers, and generally put in more practice than the average police officer does.
For an example of the standard of firearms training provided to police, check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IZlcbJwfP4
or just google "Glock 40 negligent discharge"
Hmmm ... Lets see, the accused mass murderer in Aurora was wearing full BODY ARMOR, carrying an ASSAULT Rifle and was nearly mistaken as a SWAT TEAM member by police OUTSIDE the theater. I'm sure the confused and terrified movie patrons, even if they were armed and didn't have TEAR GAS in their eyes could have brought the suspect down. Insanity!!! The same old tired NRA BullS*** doesn't cut it anymore.
I don't think we should criticize people like Ron Johnson. After all, we allow Republicans to elect most of their law makers from a gene pool that lacks several important chromosomes. Enough with the hypocrisy, folks.
I don't think we should defend them either.